HYPERBOREA / Backstab & Two Weapon Fighting

**Posted by Aelric** 4/02/2023 11:44 am

As per subject line, consider a class with the backstab class ability; meeting appropriate conditions to use the ability; and utilizing the (optional) TWF rules. As a specific example, let us suppose a thief wielding a dagger (WC = 1).in each hand so a -2 for each strike.

Question: does the backstab +4 to hit and xN damage dice apply (stack) only to one (the first) attack roll or to both? RAW (p. 35 for example) uses the singular "attack roll," but one could imagine or take the position that this was written either with the more normative singular weapon attack in mind or that attack rolls in and of themselves are singular events - thus the grammar isn't intended to address this question.

I could imagine arguing that the secondary weapon attack wouldn't be made on an unaware target - the first alerting the target - but also countering that the two attacks from TWF are considered effectively simultaneous, at least as far as game mechanics time resolution is concerned.

In any case, thought to ask.

**Posted by DMPrata** 4/02/2023 1:12 pm

I would say the backstab bonus applies only to the first of multiple attacks.

**Posted by BlackKnight** 4/02/2023 3:12 pm

DMPrata wrote:
I would say the backstab bonus applies only to the first of multiple attacks.

I Concur, would only be the first attack of multiple attacks...

**Posted by rhialto** 4/03/2023 7:34 am

I would allow only one of multiple attacks to get the backstab bonus, but in the case of a missed attack roll apply the backstab bonus to the next roll in the sequence: e.g., if the primary weapon missed, allow the secondary weapon to use the backstab bonus (or, in the case of, say, four attacks/round due to level and TWF, apply the backstab bonus to each attack roll until it is used once, then no longer).

**Posted by BlackKnight** 4/03/2023 7:58 am

I'm not sure if I'd allow it to slide to the second attack. Remembering that the Backstab implies that the attack is coming in from the unknown (ie, the defender does not know it's coming). In that case, if the first attack misses, the defender may know that attacks are now incoming.

**Posted by tomas** 4/03/2023 8:39 am

Add me to the list of only the first attack gets the bonus.

**Posted by Aelric** 4/03/2023 11:17 am

BlackKnight wrote:
I'm not sure if I'd allow it to slide to the second attack. Remembering that the Backstab implies that the attack is coming in from the unknown (ie, the defender does not know it's coming). In that case, if the first attack misses, the defender may know that attacks are now incoming.

As noted in the OP, the question can be raised as to whether the "second" attack is actually sequential - at least as far as game mechanics time resolution is concerned. In other words, we denote the attacks as first and second etc., for our ease of reference, but that might not imply actual succession in game terms as would be more clearly the case in attacks coming in successive rounds.

Another way to consider this might be to ask: in a multiple attack situation (whether TWF or due to level/mastery) can the target be shifted in a given round based on results of the "first" attack? If so, one is treating the attack sequence as sequential and distinctively resolvable within a round; if not, then one is treating the multiple attacks in the round as a coherent attack 'action' with the multiple attacks sequenced merely for pragmatic convenience.

Last edited by Aelric (4/03/2023 11:21 am)

**Posted by Blackadder23** 4/03/2023 1:17 pm

Only fighter classes get weapon mastery, and none of them have backstab as an ability, so I think we can dispose of the issue of multiple attacks for higher levels?

As for two weapon fighting, or being under a haste spell or similar, I would personally only allow a backstab on the first attack, successful or not. You would have to ask Jeff to know for sure, but I believe this is also what is intended BTB.

**Posted by rhialto** 4/03/2023 2:44 pm

Yes, absentmindedness on my part: forgot that only fighters and their subclasses get multiple attacks at higher levels...I'm still in the (apparently lonely) camp of allowing the backstab on a subsequent attack roll if the previous one(s) missed.

**Posted by Aelric** 4/03/2023 7:19 pm

Blackadder23 wrote:
Only fighter classes get weapon mastery, and none of them have backstab as an ability,

No one suggested differently. I raised the matter of weapon mastery/level as another example, along with TWF, of how one considers multiple attacks within the same round from the point of view of sequential vs simultaneous attacks as far as the granularity of game time effects are concerned. That is, in either case, are the multiple attacks considered to be sequentially resolvable (one, then the other) or, rather, effectively simultaneous as far as any game effect is concerned?

Clarity on this issue would seem to be necessary to address my original question: one objection to allowing the backstab bonuses to the 'second' attack using TWF is that the first attack (roll) would alert the target. This objection clearly implies treating multiple attacks as actually sequential: one after the other in time. I'm not necessarily asserting that this is not what the Game Designer intended, but I think that RAW do not rule out the other interpretation, that is, that multiple attacks in a given round are essentially simultaneous and that references to 'first' or 'second' attacks are for convenience of rolling and bookkeeping, not for in-game mechanical effects. This interpretation would preserve the "surprise" element for any attack made within a given round. By analogy, presumably a fighter with multiple attacks per round does not lose a surprise bonus after the first attack roll made in that round?

Put alternatively, in this latter interpretation, the 'backstab' action, when using TWF, would be considered a single action, but with two attack rolls made. With weapon mastery/levels, the idea would be like the old "full attack action" -- one action, with multiple simultaneous elements e.g. 2 (or more) attack rolls.

What I'm trying to suggest is that the question on backstabbing via TWF can only be coherently addressed (and not via an arbitrary feeling) by clarification on this matter of how multiple attacks are viewed in the combat round time scale, which is itself a broader consideration than merely the original question.

Lastly, I should observe that I have never read the earlier Hyperborea play rules so am not familiar with the combat mechanics in [2E] of Hyperborea where perhaps this sort of question was more explicitly treated. I am only raising these questions based on reading through the [3E] Hyperborea ruleset and having experience with D&D from B/X and AD&D all versions (save 4th) and PF both [1E] and [2E].

Last edited by Aelric (4/03/2023 7:24 pm)

**Posted by Blackadder23** 4/03/2023 11:48 pm

Aelric wrote:
Lastly, I should observe that I have never read the earlier Hyperborea play rules so am not familiar with the combat mechanics in [2E] of Hyperborea where perhaps this sort of question was more explicitly treated.

In fact, it was. Earlier editions of Hyperborea had a more elaborate combat sequence with multiple phases within the round, with different attacks potentially occurring in different phases with movement or enemy attacks possibly occurring in between. It was fairly explicit that multiple attacks were discrete actions.

Aelric wrote:
I am only raising these questions based on reading through the [3E] Hyperborea ruleset and having experience with D&D from B/X and AD&D all versions (save 4th) and PF both [1E] and [2E].

As far as that goes, multiple attacks are clearly separate actions in 1e AD&D (page 105 of the 1e PHB: "High level fighters get multiple blows per round, so they will usually strike first and last in a round.").

Ultimately, though, all of this is really up to the individual referee to interpret. Jeff can tell you what he intended, but in the end each referee will rule as he wishes regardless. I wouldn't allow a second attack as a backstab and rhialto would, and that's just fine.

**Posted by rhialto** 4/04/2023 2:45 am

Blackadder23 wrote:
As far as that goes, multiple attacks are clearly separate actions in 1e AD&D (page 105 of the 1e PHB: "High level fighters get multiple blows per round, so they will usually strike first and last in a round.").

I'm pretty sure my ruling is based on my recent keen interest in OD&D and using Chainmail to resolve combat, where all classes get multiple attacks as they gain levels. Pretty sure.

Blackadder23 wrote:
Ultimately, though, all of this is really up to the individual referee to interpret. Jeff can tell you what he intended, but in the end each referee will rule as he wishes regardless. I wouldn't allow a second attack as a backstab and rhialto would, and that's just fine.

Indeed. Cheers!

**Posted by Ghul** 4/04/2023 2:26 pm

Well, my interpretation is a little more strict than anything I've read above. I allow only a single attack for a backstab attempt; i.e., no two-weapon fighting allowed. I consider it to be a single, specialized action/skill not intended to be grouped with any advanced combat actions. Of course, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. ;) If, however, anyone does decide to allow for a two-weapon attack on a backstab attempt, I would probably allow the bonus only on the primary weapon attack (which is in fact the first die roll of a two-weapon attack). Again, do what you think is best for your game, but that is how I handle it.

**Posted by mavfire** 4/05/2023 7:52 am

I love it!

Ghul wrote:
Well, my interpretation is a little more strict than anything I've read above. I allow only a single attack for a backstab attempt; i.e., no two-weapon fighting allowed. I consider it to be a single, specialized action/skill not intended to be grouped with any advanced combat actions. Of course, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. ;) If, however, anyone does decide to allow for a two-weapon attack on a backstab attempt, I would probably allow the bonus only on the primary weapon attack (which is in fact the first die roll of a two-weapon attack). Again, do what you think is best for your game, but that is how I handle it.

And that is why I love Hyperborea and Jeff’s version of the game. It is a raw, difficult to eek out an existence way of life. It is in fact the antithesis of “new school”. The PC’s get no bonuses other than those explicitly stated. Role-play matters more than roll-play, and characters are less heroes than targets of a harsh world where everything is out to get you. It’s a run for your petty existence fools kind of life. Haha.

**Posted by Ghul** 4/05/2023 2:23 pm

Great post, Del. Love it.

**Posted by rhialto** 4/06/2023 7:43 am

mavfire wrote:
And that is why I love Hyperborea and Jeff’s version of the game. It is a raw, difficult to eek out an existence way of life. It is in fact the antithesis of “new school”. The PC’s get no bonuses other than those explicitly stated. Role-play matters more than roll-play, and characters are less heroes than targets of a harsh world where everything is out to get you. It’s a run for your petty existence fools kind of life. Haha.

To hazard repeating myself from the other thief backstab thread: in general I'm loathe to thwart my players from honing their system mastery, and this is such a case for me. I have a hard time envisioning a case where a missed primary attack causes the defender to become alert to being attacked when the secondary attack could be a fraction of a second behind it, and the combat system is abstract enough for me not to want to deconstruct a second-by-second attack sequence. But the game permits many approaches: I tend to a more heroic fiction emulation than realistic style, and encourage my players to play that way. Cheers!